alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NAHMS Sheep 2024 Study

Informational Flyer

What is the NAHMS Sheep 2024 Study?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) conducts a 

national sheep study approximately every 10 years. The upcoming Sheep 2024 study will support industry

groups and research efforts with new and valuable information on sheep health and management. The study 

consists of two phases and includes biological sampling and two questionnaires.

Who is Eligible to Participate in the Study? 

A random selection of almost 5,000 sheep operations with at least 1 

ewe located in the study States (see dark shaded States in the map)

will be asked to participate. While participation is voluntary, it is 

important to obtain high quality data. National Agricultural Statistics

Service (NASS) will contact selected participants in January and 

February 2024. Participants will be asked to provide their contact 

information to NAHMS in order to complete the second phase of the 

study, which begins in April 2024 and continues through July 2024.

Why Should I Participate in the Study?

Information from the study will help develop new treatments, controls, and prevention mechanisms for sheep 

diseases. The results will also guide future research and education. Participants will not only represent 

themselves but also the producers who were not selected for the study. 

Eligible operations will receive FREE testing for enteric 

microbes, gastrointestinal parasites, and lameness pathogens. 

What are the Next Steps?

If you don’t currently receive NASS censuses or surveys, 

sign up at www.agcounts.usda.gov/static/get-counted.html

If NASS contacts you in January 2024, please agree to complete the 

NAHMS Sheep 2024 study. Until then, you can help spread the word to

other producers about the importance of the 2024 study.

To access reports from previous NAHMS studies or information on 

upcoming studies, visit www.aphis.usda.gov/nahms or scan the QR code.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Principal Plus Fund L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       9,270,594
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,344
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,108,399<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,108,399<F2>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,290,367<F3>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,958,490
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,250,454<F4>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,250,454<F4>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,250,454<F4>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets
include net unrealized gain on open contracts of $1,200,707
and investment in U.S. Treasury bills of $41,602,754.
<F2>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $956,163, accrued
brokerage fee of $173,174, accrued administrative fees of $156,280,
accrued management fee of $43,293 and incentive fees payable of $147,477.
<F3>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $4,803,195, net
change in unrealized of $421,275, interest income of $2,855,465 and
change in valuation of Yield Pool of $210,432.
<F4>Income-Pretax, Income Continuing and Net Income includes minority
interest in income of $81,423.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Robert M. WIEMAN, Nancy Kent Ziebur, Werner C. Baum, Samuel Hunt Lee, Jr., Malcolm Correll and Luella Nietz, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Paul W. UPDEGRAFF, The Board of Regents of the Oklahoma Agricultural Colleges, A. S. J. Shaw, State Treasurer of The State of Oklahoma, and Wilburn C. Cartwright, State Auditor of the State of Oklahoma, Defendants in Error.

No. 36240.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 2, 1956.

*1004Don Emery, Robert J. Emery, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Paul W. Updegraff, Norman, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Paul W. Updegraff, a taxpayer, to enjoin the defendants, Board of Regents of the Agricultural Colleges, the State Treasurer, and the State Auditor, from paying public funds to teachers, in the Agricultural and Mechanical College at Stillwater, who had not subscribed to and filed the loyalty oath prescribed in 51 O.S.1951 §§ 37.1 to 37.8 inc. Robert M. Wieman, Nancy Kent Ziebur, Werner C. Baum, Samuel Hunt Lee, Jr., Malcolm Correll, and Luella Nietz, the teachers affected, were permitted to intervene. The judgment of the trial court, granting the injunction, was affirmed by this court on appeal. Board of Regents of Oklahoma Agricultural Colleges v. Updegraff, 205 Okl. 301, 237 P.2d 131.

The Supreme Court-of the United States heard the matter on appeal, reversing the judgment of this court. Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S.Ct. 215, 97 L.Ed. 216, and issuing its order and mandate of reversal and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with said opinion. Whereupon, this court, in conformity thereto, issued its mandate of reversal and remand to, the trial court. Subsequently and on July 7, 1953, after ordering the mandate spread of record, the trial court made and entered its order and judgment resetting said cause for.hearing on August 7, 1953 and further ordering that said intervenors be permitted to file, within said time, oaths from which had been deleted, the matter found by the Supreme Court of the United States to be objectional. On the latter date, judgment was rendered for the one intervenor who had complied with the former order. As to the others judgment was *1005rendered for plaintiff. From that order, said intervenors have perfected this appeal.

Upon the first appeal, this court expressed its opinion and cited the authority upon which said opinion was founded.: The subsequent opinion and mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States has stripped this court of any discretion in the matter. Lowe v. Dickson, 127 Okl. 127, 260 P. 25. Therefore, by direction of said mandate, it is the order of this court that said judgment be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment denying plaintiff the relief sought and taxing the costs against him.

WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, HALLEY, BLACKBIRD and JACKSON, JJ., concur.
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 35 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-135039) and Amendment No. 545 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.









/s/ Ernst &  Young LLP




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania




December 27, 2016
# C_2008051EN.01005901.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/59

---

Action brought on 28 December 2007 — GlaxoSmithKline v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)

(Case T-493/07)

(2008/C 51/107)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: GlaxoSmithkline SpA (Verona, Italy) (represented by: G. Richard, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Serono Genetics Institute SA (Evry, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 14 September 2007 in Case R 8/2007-1 and declare the request for invalidation brought by the applicant to be well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 14 September 2007 in Case R 8/2007-1 and declare the request for invalidation brought by the applicant to be well founded;

| — | the applicant invites the Board to annul all cost orders made against the applicant by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, and to order the later to bear the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant invites the Board to annul all cost orders made against the applicant by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, and to order the later to bear the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The Community word mark ‘FAMOXIN’ for goods and services in Class 5 — Application No 2 491 298

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Serono Genetics Institute SA

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national word mark ‘LANOXIN’ for goods in Class 5

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for invalidation in its entirety

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 52 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL MOISES SUAREZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DOUGLAS DUCEY; STATE OF 

ARIZONA; UNKNOWN PARTY, named as 

John Doe #1 Etc.; DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-15537 

D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00317-RCC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2022**

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Rafael Moises Suarez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations 

stemming from Suarez’s arrest and conviction in 1997. We have jurisdiction under 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 19 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-15537 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

Because Suarez failed to allege facts that could establish an exception under 

Ex Parte Young, the district court properly dismissed Suarez’s claims as barred by 

the Eleventh Amendment. See Seven Up Pete Venture v. Schweitzer, 523 F.3d 

948, 952-53 (9th Cir. 2008) (describing Eleventh Amendment immunity and the Ex 

Parte Young exception); Snoeck v. Brussa, 153 F.3d 984, 986-87 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(“[A] generalized duty to enforce state law or general supervisory power over the 

persons responsible for enforcing the challenged provision will not subject an 

official to suit.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2008008EN.01002402.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/24

---

Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Bayern Innovativ v OHIM — Life Sciences Partners Perstock (LifeScience)

(Case T-413/07)

(2008/C 8/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bayern Innovativ — Bayerische Gesellschaft für Innovation und Wissenstransfer mbH (Nürnberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Beschorner, B. Glaser, C. Thomas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Life Sciences Partners Perstock N.V. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | To annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal No R 1545/2006-1 of 2 August 2007 regarding Community trade mark No 3 585 957 ‘LifeScience’; |
| --- | --- |

—

To annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal No R 1545/2006-1 of 2 August 2007 regarding Community trade mark No 3 585 957 ‘LifeScience’;

| — | to reject the opposition No B 795 270 of the intervener in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

to reject the opposition No B 795 270 of the intervener in its entirety;

| — | to order the OHIM to register the Community trade mark No 3 585 957 ‘LifeScience’ as published; |
| --- | --- |

—

to order the OHIM to register the Community trade mark No 3 585 957 ‘LifeScience’ as published;

| — | to order the other party to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and to order the intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

to order the other party to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and to order the intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark consisting of a coloured representation of a spiral DNA chain, an oval and a grid and containing the verbal elements ‘LifeScience’ written below for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 41, 42 — application No 3 585 957

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Life Sciences Partners Perstock N.V.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The figurative Community trade mark consisting of a representation of a naked woman wrapped in a DNA chain and containing the word elements ‘Life Sciences Partners’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 — application No 2 136 026.

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of (EC) Council Regulation No 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
September 2019

There were 10 surveillance inspections conducted at 9 different sites for a total of 

101 fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities 

when possible. The water temperatures remained steady. There were no cages 

confirmed this month. All of the sites with fish in the water remained Category 1 and 

were scheduled for monthly sampling.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

October 2018 40 0 20679

November 2018 40 0 20719

December 2018 45 0 20764

January 2019 40 0 20804

February 2019 50 0 20854

March 2019 115 0 20969

April 2019 108 0 21077

May 2019 92 0 21169

June 2019 123 0 21292

July 2019 123 0 21415

August 2019 96 0 21511

September 2019 101 0 21612
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 81 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee 

on Intelligence in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2015 

Mr. NUNES (for himself and Mr. SCHIFF) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Permanent Select 

Committee on Intelligence in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee 

4 on Intelligence (hereafter in this resolution referred to as 

5 the ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff sala6 ries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts 

7 of the House of Representatives for committee salaries 

8 and expenses, not more than $9,194,000 for the One Hun9 dred Fourteenth Congress. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 81 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $4,597,000 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2015, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2016; and 

7 (2) not more than $4,597,000 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2016, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2017. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1038 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1038

To clarify that no express or implied warranty is provided by reason of 
  a disclosure relating to voluntary participation in the Energy Star 
                    program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 22, 2015

   Mr. Risch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify that no express or implied warranty is provided by reason of 
  a disclosure relating to voluntary participation in the Energy Star 
                    program, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Star Program Integrity Act''.

SEC. 2. NO WARRANTY.

    Section 324A of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6294a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) No Warranty.--
            ``(1) In general.--Any disclosure relating to participation 
        of a product in the Energy Star program shall not create an 
        express or implied warranty or give rise to any private claims 
        or rights of action under Federal or State law relating to the 
        disqualification of that product from Energy Star if--
                    ``(A) the product has been certified by a 
                certification body recognized by the Energy Star 
                program;
                    ``(B) the Administrator has approved corrective 
                measures, including a determination of whether consumer 
                compensation is appropriate; and
                    ``(C) the responsible party has fully complied with 
                all approved corrective measures.
            ``(2) No action by administrator necessary.--Nothing in 
        this subsection requires the Administrator to modify any 
        procedure or take any other action.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 5, 2021

No. 04

- 19

- 00871

- CR

Charles W. EADEN, Appellan t

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR4480 Honorable Raymond Angelini , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he has served copies of the brief and motion on appellant

, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and ex plained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.) ; see also Kelly v. State

, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within forty

- five (45) days from the date of

this order.

The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files a pro se b rief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

W e further ORDER the m otion to withdraw filed by appellant ’ s counsel to be HELD IN

ABEYA NCE pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

- 82 (1988);

Schulman v. State , 252 S.W.3d 403, 410

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

We instruct the Clerk of this Court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his counsel,

the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court._________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of February, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court